ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Effect of Bone Marrow Stimulation on Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological strategies in rotator cuff repair: a clinical application and molecular background.EFORT open reviews · 2024Review
- Factors affecting healing of rotator cuff repairs: microfracture of the greater tuberosity.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) is a common orthopaedic procedure, but it has a high rate of retears that can negatively affect the functional outcomes. Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) has been suggested as an additional treatment to improve the outcomes of RCR. Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of the BMS procedure during RCR with conventional RCR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, on March 1, 2023, for studies comparing postoperative retear rates and functional outcomes between patients who underwent primary arthroscopic RCR with and without the BMS procedure. Only level 1 and 2 randomized controlled trials with a minimum 12-month follow-up were included. The primary outcomes were retear rates and functional outcomes as measured by the Constant; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES); and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores and by postoperative range of motion. Subgroup analyses were performed based on repair technique (single-row repair vs double-row or suture-bridge repair). The standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) were utilized to synthesize continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Homogeneity was evaluated using the chi-square test and Results: The literature search yielded 661 articles, of which 6 studies (522 patients; 261 with BMS, 261 without BMS) met the eligibility criteria. The combined analysis showed no significant decrease in retear rates with the utilization of the BMS procedure during RCR (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.03; Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, this systematic review did not find a significant benefit of the BMS procedure at the footprint during arthroscopic RCR compared with conventional RCR in terms of retear rates and functional outcomes at short-term follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.